Just on terminology - I think the colloquial use of the word “adaptive” is fairly rare, it doesn’t have any self-evident meaning in a non-technical context. The way I’m using it in this thread (which I think is consistent with what you’ll see in research papers that deal with any aspect of evolution) it always has the specific technical meaning of “genetically determined, evolved through natural selection by having a fitness advantage”. So in the context of this thread, I have generally been using it as an antonym to cultural - i.e. meaning instinctive as opposed to culturally determined. It’s a value-neutral term, and it doesn’t imply that something is beneficial to us in the modern environment, just that it’s an instinctive trait that originally evolved through natural selection (and not genetic drift).
Culture and moral reasoning evolve in the colloquial sense of developing, perhaps with some parallels to biological evolution (Dawkins’ “meme” idea), albeit not with the same technical constraints. And of course, I understand you are drawing that parallel in what you write here. But I’m just pointing out the potential for misunderstanding.
Sure, but one point I have been arguing above is that given the technical constraints of how natural selection works, those circumstances would tend to be unusual. We now have convincing evolutionary models for how general prosocial behaviors are adaptive (and without invoking group selection). A general prosocial behavior would be sharing food, for example. The very thing that’s distinctive about humans is the great extent of our prosocial behaviors. Our evolutionary niche is cooperation for mutual benefit, and that, just as much as intelligence, is how we have come to dominate this planet. But even when cooperative behaviors are proximately altruistic, if they are adaptive behaviors they must (by definition) be ultimately selfish, in the sense that they benefit the actor in preference to others who don’t act that way; and where “benefit” is defined as getting more of your own genes into the next generation in preference over other people’s genes. So you can see that it’s much easier for general mutually cooperate behaviors to be adaptive in any social structure, but it’s much more difficult for the specific prosocial behavior of having no preference for your own kids to be adaptive. It’s possible, but the social structure would have to be exceptional in order for this to be stable in an evolutionary sense - in other words for it not so be susceptible to invasion by a mutant trait to give preferential treatment to your own kids - because that’s such a direct way to give your own genes a better chance.
I’m not sure if you’re using “evolved” in the technical sense here of biological evolution, or a loose sense that might incorporate culture.
Not all genetically determined traits are adaptive, they may be side effects - much of the diversity of what we do in the modern world (both good and bad) comes from having giant brains that originally evolved for much narrower reasons. Perhaps our aspirations to be truly altruistic are along similar lines, since they cannot (by definition) be adaptive. Our core prosocial tendency is adaptive - to help others in our social group, but only with the expectation of reciprocation. So we have a strong sensitivity to “good” and “bad” behavior - we monitor other members of our social group to see if they are pulling their weight and likely to reciprocate. In other words, as something adaptive this is proximately altruistic behavior with an ultimately selfish goal. So adaptive evolution gives us a strong instinctive sensitivity to proximate good/bad behavior along with a huge brain. That seems like the perfect platform to use our brains for moral reasoning to elevate our behavior toward true altruism.
It may surprise you given this thread, but I more often find myself on the other side of this kind of debate - debunking the notion that only our most crude and obviously selfish traits are instinctive, and that the origin of all good must lie completely outside of our natures. An idea common among religious folk, of course.